(And Why It Does Absolutely Nothing)
If you spend any time in family court spaces online, you will see the same advice repeated like gospel:
- Demand the judge’s oath of office.
- Ask them to prove they are sworn.
- If they cannot, the court has no authority.
I don’t like it, I think it’s dumb for multiple reasons, but I understand why this spreads.
The family court system is a dumpster fire. People are fighting for their kids, their homes, their dignity, and sometimes their sanity. Family Court causes people to lose their marbles. The process feels arbitrary, hostile, and impossible to navigate without losing something that matters.
But here is the hard truth: asking for a judge or prosecutor for their oath of office does nothing. It does not help your case. It does not protect your children. And it makes you look unserious to the one institution that already holds all the power.
I actually know of a few cases where the individuals grandstanded and went on and on about “Oath of Office.” And right now, they’re all currently sitting in prison. I have yet to hear ONE case where this tactic actually worked. If someone tells you it did, demand the courtroom footage and see how that turns out.
So let’s unpack this, because if your goal is to be heard, this is not the way. You will only lose precious time and piss off the court. If you think you are dunking on the judge, you are sadly mistaken.
Where This Stupid Idea Comes From
The oath of office argument did not originate in family court specifically. It migrated there from:
- sovereign citizen ideology
- pseudo constitutional litigation tactics
- internet legal folklore that promises control where people feel powerless
Family court is emotionally brutal. People want something that feels like leverage. The oath demand feels righteous. It feels procedural. It feels like accountability.
It is none of those things. Especially when the problem is the actual Michigan constitution itself. More on that in a minute.
What an Oath of Office Actually Is
Judges take an oath of office when they assume their position. That oath is:
- administered once
- recorded administratively
- presumed valid unless formally challenged through the proper process
- It is not a jurisdictional document you can demand during litigation.
- It does not expire.
- It does not become invalid just because a party asks for it.
Courts operate under a doctrine called presumptive regularity. Judges are presumed properly sworn and authorized unless proven otherwise through official channels.
Your motion does not undo that presumption.
Why Courts Shut This Down Immediately
Judges see oath of office demands constantly; it’s not novel by any stretch of the imagination. To the court, these filings are:
- legally irrelevant
- procedurally improper
- associated with frivolous litigation patterns
Once you file one, you signal that you are relying on internet mythology rather than law. That signal sticks. After that, every legitimate issue you raise is filtered through skepticism.
That is not fair, but that is still how the system works.
What This Actually Does to Your Case
Instead of helping, oath demands tend to:
- distract from real legal errors
- undermine your credibility
- give opposing counsel an easy narrative
- shift attention from substance to control
Family court runs heavily on discretion. Judges may not say it out loud, but credibility matters.
You do not want to be remembered as the person who tried to audit the judge’s existence. Further, consider this: how many of the people offering this advice online actually have custody of their children or accomplished their goals in the courtroom?
The Part People Do Not Want to Hear
I know the system is broken. I know people are desperate. I know everyone is trying to fight for their kids.
But filing oath of office demands does not make you principled.
It makes you look like a jack wagon.
Not because you are wrong to be angry. Because you are aiming that anger at something that has zero legal effect.
Family court does not reward symbolic resistance; it punishes it.
Why This Keeps Spreading Anyway
Because it gives people a sense of agency when everything feels out of control, but symbolic agency is not legal agency.
And family court is one of the worst places to confuse the two.
What Actually Helps Instead
If you want accountability, stay calm, keep your cool, and focus on issues courts are required to engage with:
- statutory violations
- due process failures
- lack of notice or improper service
- findings that contradict the record
- unsupported credibility determinations
These are boring. They are technical. They work.
The system responds to errors in record and procedure, not challenges to its authority.
Why This Matters
People lose years, custody, money, and credibility chasing tactics that feel empowering but do nothing.
Not because they are stupid.
Because they are scared and trying to survive.
Stopping bad advice from spreading is part of protecting families from further harm. Understanding what does not work is just as important as knowing what does.
If You Want This System to Change
If people actually want family court to function differently, if they want fewer dumpster-fire dynamics, less unchecked discretion, and more meaningful accountability, then filing gimmick motions is not the answer.
Structural systems do not reform themselves because litigants yell at judges and wave around pieces of paper.
They change when the rules that govern them change.
In Michigan, one of the few tools voters have to force a serious, system-level conversation about judicial power, due process, and accountability is a Constitutional Convention.
If voters approve a con-con on the November 2026 ballot, that is where questions about court structure, judicial authority, and safeguards actually belong. Not in the middle of a custody hearing. Not in a motion copied from the internet. Not in a confrontation that only hurts the person filing it.
If you are serious about reform, vote like it matters, because it DOES. In court, symbolism gets punished. At the ballot box, it is the only thing that counts.
Pulling It All Together
Family court is not a constitutional debate club. It is an administrative power system with enormous discretion and very little patience for performative challenges.
You do not protect your children by demanding the judge’s oath.
You protect them by building a clean record that exposes real error.
Anger is justified.
Misdirected anger is costly.
Sources and Further Reading
- Michigan Court Rules
- Judicial ethics and court administration materials
- Appellate opinions addressing frivolous filings
- Research on sovereign citizen litigation patterns
